ArticlePacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing2024
Polygenic risk scores for cardiometabolic traits demonstrate importance of ancestry for predictive precision medicine.
Article in Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Pathway insights and predictive modeling for type 2 diabetes using polygenic risk scores.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Application of polygenic scores to a deeply phenotyped sample enriched for substance use disorders reveals extensive pleiotropy with psychiatric and somatic traits.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Polygenic risk scores (PRS) have predominantly been derived from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) conducted in European ancestry (EUR) individuals. In this study, we present an in-depth evaluation of PRS based on multi-ancestry GWAS for five cardiometabolic phenotypes in the Penn Medicine BioBank (PMBB) followed by a phenome-wide association study (PheWAS). We examine the PRS performance across all individuals and separately in African ancestry (AFR) and EUR ancestry groups. For AFR individuals, PRS derived using the multi-ancestry LD panel showed a higher effect size for four out of five PRSs (DBP, SBP, T2D, and BMI) than those derived from the AFR LD panel. In contrast, for EUR individuals, the multi-ancestry LD panel PRS demonstrated a higher effect size for two out of five PRSs (SBP and T2D) compared to the EUR LD panel. These findings underscore the potential benefits of utilizing a multi-ancestry LD panel for PRS derivation in diverse genetic backgrounds and demonstrate overall robustness in all individuals. Our results also revealed significant associations between PRS and various phenotypic categories. For instance, CAD PRS was linked with 18 phenotypes in AFR and 82 in EUR, while T2D PRS correlated with 84 phenotypes in AFR and 78 in EUR. Notably, associations like hyperlipidemia, renal failure, atrial fibrillation, coronary atherosclerosis, obesity, and hypertension were observed across different PRSs in both AFR and EUR groups, with varying effect sizes and significance levels. However, in AFR individuals, the strength and number of PRS associations with other phenotypes were generally reduced compared to EUR individuals. Our study underscores the need for future research to prioritize 1) conducting GWAS in diverse ancestry groups and 2) creating a cosmopolitan PRS methodology that is universally applicable across all genetic backgrounds. Such advances will foster a more equitable and personalized approach to precision medicine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38160310PMC10947742W4389868575What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.